| Literature DB >> 35744558 |
Tongshun Liu1, Qian Wang1, Weisu Wang1.
Abstract
Mechanistic cutting force model has the potential for monitoring micro-milling tool wear. However, the existing studies mainly consider the linear cutting force model, and they are incompetent to monitor the micro-milling tool wear which has a significant nonlinear effect on the cutting force due to the cutting-edge radius size effect. In this study, a nonlinear mechanistic cutting force model considering the comprehensive effect of cutting-edge radius and tool wear on the micro-milling force is constructed for micro-milling tool wear monitoring. A stepwise offline optimization approach is proposed to estimate the multiple parameters of the model. By minimizing the gap between the theoretical force expressed by the nonlinear model and the force measured in real-time, the tool wear condition is online monitored. Experiments show that, compared with the linear model, the nonlinear model has significantly improved cutting force prediction accuracy and tool wear monitoring accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: cutting force; micro-milling; online monitoring; tool wear
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744558 PMCID: PMC9231107 DOI: 10.3390/mi13060943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 3.523
The parameters of the nonlinear cutting force model for micro-milling.
| Parameter | Description | Unit | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| shear stress | GPa |
| βs | friction angle | deg | |
| σm | ploughing coefficient | GPa | |
|
| friction coefficient in ploughing region | GPa | |
|
| σv | radial friction stress | GPa |
|
| tangential friction stress | GPa | |
| VB* | the width of the elastic contact region | μm | |
Figure 1Equivalent cutting radius and uncut chip thickness. (a) Equivalent cutting radius under tool runout and tool wear. (b) Uncut chip thickness with the equivalent cutting radius.
Figure 2The nonlinear cutting force model in micro-milling.
Figure 3The fitting of the friction force coefficient function.
Cutting conditions.
| Cutting | Spindle Speed | Cutting | Axial Cutting Depth | Feed | Feed per Tooth (μm/Tooth) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 18,000 | 28.27 | 80 | 144 | 4 |
| C2 | 24,000 | 37.70 | 100 | 96 | 2 |
| C3 | 30,000 | 47.12 | 60 | 360 | 6 |
Parameters of the micro-milling tool.
| Tooth Number | Tool | Rake | Clearance | Initial Flank Wear Width | Initial Cutting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.5 mm | 5° | 7° | 0 μm | 2 μm |
Figure 4Experimental setup.
Model parameters.
| Cutting | Estimated with Fresh Tool | Estimated with Worn Tool | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| C1 | 0.56 | 24.98 | 15.03 | 1.01 | 0.76 | 1.25 | 18.68 |
| C2 | 0.48 | 25.71 | 17.24 | 1.04 | 1.81 | 2.62 | 16.62 |
| C3 | 0.52 | 27.82 | 23.12 | 1.02 | 2.22 | 2.98 | 18.77 |
Figure 5The cutting force prediction results. (a) Fx at pass 2 in C1; (b) Fy at pass 2 in C1; (c) Fx at pass 2 in C2; (d) Fy at pass 2 in C2; (e) Fx at pass 2 in C3; (f) Fy at pass 2 in C3.
The error of cutting force prediction.
| Cutting Pass | Nonlinear Force Model | Linear Force Model |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | 7.85% | 12.25% |
| C2 | 6.11% | 8.94% |
| C3 | 9.68% | 12.96% |
Tool wear monitoring results.
| Cutting Pass | Pass 2 | Pass 3 | Pass 4 | Pass 5 | Pass 6 | Pass 7 | Pass 8 | Pass 9 | Pass 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | −0.28 | −0.43 | 0.38 | −0.49 | −0.36 | 0.32 | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.34 | |
| 3.65 | 4.18 | 4.00 | 4.22 | 3.72 | 4.48 | 4.28 | 4.73 | 5.62 | ||
| 15.26 | 16.54 | 23.43 | 23.83 | 26.37 | 25.03 | 31.35 | 28.09 | 36.32 | ||
| 11.92 | 15.00 | 20.00 | 22.50 | 24.50 | 27.00 | 29.00 | 33.50 | 35.00 | ||
| C2 | −0.22 | −0.32 | 0.24 | 0.31 | 0.47 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.28 | 0.49 | |
| 3.86 | 3.74 | 2.96 | 2.87 | 4.02 | 4.24 | 4.95 | 5.69 | 6.03 | ||
| 11.90 | 14.07 | 12.10 | 15.10 | 19.32 | 21.53 | 23.68 | 23.85 | 24.40 | ||
| 10.00 | 11.00 | 15.00 | 15.50 | 16.00 | 19.00 | 21.50 | 23.00 | 26.50 | ||
| C3 | −0.19 | −0.40 | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.65 | −0.54 | −0.60 | −0.61 | |
| 3.73 | 4.23 | 4.41 | 3.78 | 4.65 | 4.22 | 4.87 | 4.85 | 4.46 | ||
| 1.51 | 11.27 | 9.78 | 11.79 | 18.90 | 20.93 | 22.78 | 22.11 | 26.74 | ||
| 4.50 | 9.00 | 12.50 | 15.00 | 16.00 | 17.00 | 22.50 | 26.50 | 28.00 | ||
Figure 6The estimated flank wear width and the cutting-edge radius. (a)Tool wear in C1; (b) Tool wear in C2; (c) Tool wear in C3.
The cutting distance per tooth.
| Cutting Condition | Cutting Distance per Tooth |
|---|---|
|
| 29.45 m |
|
| 58.90 m |
|
| 19.64 m |
The average tool wear monitoring error.
| Cutting Pass | Monitoring via Nonlinear Force Model | Monitoring via Linear Force Model |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | 2.51 μm | 4.30 μm |
| C2 | 2.14 μm | 4.45 μm |
| C4 | 2.66 μm | 3.86 μm |